4 ms·

Your statement assumes they need to pay someone to keep going, which as the previous poster points out is not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers, as in

Your statement assumes they need to pay someone to keep going, which as the previous poster points out is not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers, as indeed seems to have happened. And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written.

labster 3y ago
From my experience talking to bawolff on WMF's Phabricator, we can definitely assume good faith.
cxr 3y ago
> Your statement assumes they need to pay someone to keep going No it doesn't. A person who says e.g., "If you have diabetes, you need to mindful of your insulin and blood sugar levels", is not assuming a given person has diabetes. That's not how conditional claims are read. > [and it's] not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers Wrong; even if they can (and have), what I stated still remains true. > And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written. Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" guideline is exactly that—a Wikipedia guideline—and has no intrinsic connection to wikis. Aside from that, the tendency for Wikipedians to admonish their opponent by citing WP:AGF specifically for the purpose of implicitly accusing the other side of (willfully or not) choosing not to observe/respect the rules of decorum—and thus themselves operating in contravention of the very guideline they're citing—is perverse but unfortunately entirely too common. Invoking the shibboleth is certainly one of Wikipedia's most baffling traditions.
- blechinger 3y ago
  The biting antagonism of your message's tone undermines it's content. Even so you've chosen to die on a strange hill. What you seem to be arguing for is conditional on how "money to to continue" is understood in this context. While I believe I understand your point: it's moot. A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible.
  - cxr 3y ago
    Whose strange hill are we talking about? > A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible. Again, wrong. I'm pretty well-acquainted with what I said. Go reply (antagonistically) to someone whose remarks actually contain the defects you so badly wish mine contained (to the point that you're willing to ignore what I've actually written and substitute whatever it is you're imagining me to have said in its place).
    - immanentize 3y ago
      You can reason perfectly and still be wrong - because you have applied the logic wrong in some way.
      - cxr 3y ago
        That's a true statement. It, like other statements that have been made in this cursed thread, isn't something that moves the needle on whether what I said is actually wrong or not, though... But it is a true statement!

labster 3y ago

From my experience talking to bawolff on WMF's Phabricator, we can definitely assume good faith.

cxr 3y ago

> Your statement assumes they need to pay someone to keep going No it doesn't. A person who says e.g., "If you have diabetes, you need to mindful of your insulin and blood sugar levels", is not assuming a given person has diabetes. That's not how conditional claims are read. > [and it's] not true if they can find new unpaid volunteers Wrong; even if they can (and have), what I stated still remains true. > And since we're talking wikis here, please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith when people comment on what you've written. Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" guideline is exactly that—a Wikipedia guideline—and has no intrinsic connection to wikis. Aside from that, the tendency for Wikipedians to admonish their opponent by citing WP:AGF specifically for the purpose of implicitly accusing the other side of (willfully or not) choosing not to observe/respect the rules of decorum—and thus themselves operating in contravention of the very guideline they're citing—is perverse but unfortunately entirely too common. Invoking the shibboleth is certainly one of Wikipedia's most baffling traditions.

blechinger 3y ago
The biting antagonism of your message's tone undermines it's content. Even so you've chosen to die on a strange hill. What you seem to be arguing for is conditional on how "money to to continue" is understood in this context. While I believe I understand your point: it's moot. A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible.
- cxr 3y ago
  Whose strange hill are we talking about? > A continuation has occurred. A continuation is occuring. If your assertions were correct that would not be possible. Again, wrong. I'm pretty well-acquainted with what I said. Go reply (antagonistically) to someone whose remarks actually contain the defects you so badly wish mine contained (to the point that you're willing to ignore what I've actually written and substitute whatever it is you're imagining me to have said in its place).
  - immanentize 3y ago
    You can reason perfectly and still be wrong - because you have applied the logic wrong in some way.
    - cxr 3y ago
      That's a true statement. It, like other statements that have been made in this cursed thread, isn't something that moves the needle on whether what I said is actually wrong or not, though... But it is a true statement!